# Those for new gun control laws... **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 3, 2017, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847 "2017-10-03T05:06:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/141 "2017-10-06T13:00:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The State is going to have to do a lot better than that. Do you take the whole Constitution seriously, or only the parts you like? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/142 "2017-10-06T13:22:20Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m talking about penalizing a group for the actions of a subset, and you bring in nukes. Lack of nukes is not a penalty, and it’s not even in remotely the same league, much less the same sport. Then tell us what your definition of “arms” is, if it is something other than “something \*\*Bone \*\*likes”. > [@](#): > > I’ve engaged in discussion about firearm policy all over the boards for many years. Denial, derision, and deflection, but not discussion. You have \*engaged \*exactly no one. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/143 "2017-10-06T13:24:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You are very much missing the point. The government has to explain why they shouldn’t, and then the citizens decide if the case is strong enough. > > The government might be able to do that, and the process of how the citizens decide Yes or No is not straightforward, but that is part of living in a Constitutional republic. > > If **you** would like to argue the case, go ahead. But that is no different from any other gun control proposal. The burden of proof lies with the State. > > Regards, > Shodan Thank you for the lesson in how government works. However, I am asking you what YOUR opinion is on whether or not a fully functional M134 Minigun should be available to everyone to own and bear. If you think that it shouldn’t be available to own and bear, why not? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/144 "2017-10-06T13:30:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m talking about penalizing a group for the actions of a subset, and you bring in nukes. Lack of nukes is not a penalty, and it’s not even in remotely the same league, much less the same sport. That’s not a serious rejoinder. If you think it is, then we’re essentially speaking a different language. As for deflection, hardly. I’ve engaged in discussion about firearm policy all over the boards for many years. I’ll have any serious conversation pro or con. But if that’s not of interest, if folks want to have non-serious discussion, I’m not interested. I typically don’t engage with non-serious people. > > Do you understand the current SCOTUS jurisprudence regarding firearms? Have you read Heller? Do you understand how “arms” are defined? If the answer to any of those questions is “yes”, then I would expect an understanding of why introducing nukes is not an indication of an interest in serious discussion. > > So sure, if you want to engage in hyperbole then that’s your prerogative. Good luck. Then I apologize if I went too far. But I don’t know what limits you are placing on things. When you say that people should not be punished, I take that as meaning having access to things restricted from them, as that is how you define punishment for any other form of gun control. I do not find it all that far out there that security contractors like blackwater would request the ability to develop and use of small tactical nukes like the old davy crockett (hopefully updated), or the use of nerve agents for the purpose of securing sensitive areas. There are people out there that will want these devices, and I don’t see an argument that stops at, well, wherever it is that you are willing to stop. To be honest, I find it far more likely that security contractors will try to justify the use of WMDs far before the govt comes around to confiscate your guns, and yet, I am supposed to treat the idea that the govt is going to come around and confiscate your guns seriously. How is that not hyperbole? Should those who are for the responsible regulation of firearms refuse to engage with anyone who brings up govt confiscation as someone not to be taken seriously? Let’s back up then. You have indicated, I think, that you agree with the laws against machine guns. If that is the case, what justification do you use to deny a machine gun to someone that wants one and claims that they will use it responsibly? I’m not talking here about heller or sc court decisions based on 2A, nor even about existing legislation, as all of that is easily changed. But, within 2A, and within your personal feelings on the matter, what limits do you put on the sorts of weaponry that one can arm themselves with. Manson said that you feel that people should be able to arm themselves as well as the police, but I don’t remember your positions well enough to say if that is the case. If this is the case, are you talking normal police, or swat? Is it typical police gear, or anything that they have access to? If it is the latter, then I am concerned about the escalation, as police say they need to have these military and tactical type weapons because they need to have better weapons than the criminals do, and the criminals are armed by whatever is available to the populace, so, if the populace has access to anything the police have access to…, I think you can see where this goes. > [@dba\_Fred](#): > > I for one would like to hear more about this _right not to be shot_; could you point me to where this right is in the Constitution or its Amendments, maybe a statute, case law or an executive order? Just out of curiosity, Bone, IYHO, is this the sort of post that I should be taking seriously? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/145 "2017-10-06T15:56:41Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Then I apologize if I went too far. But I don’t know what limits you are placing on things. When you say that people should not be punished, I take that as meaning having access to things restricted from them, as that is how you define punishment for any other form of gun control. Broadly - punishment is some kind of sanction or penalty as a consequence of some other action. For example, two people A and B both legally possess a slide fire bump stock. A commits crimes using it, and B does not. It would be appropriate to punish A for their actions. It would not be appropriate to punish B for the actions of A. The question of whether the slide fire stock should be legal is independent of the actions of A. This gets magnified if there is a group of people that are represented by B, and a single person that is A. It is no punishment to restrict the ability of people to have nukes, because people never had that in the first place. The question of whether to limit nukes can be addressed on its own merits. > [@](#): > > I do not find it all that far out there that security contractors like blackwater would request the ability to develop and use of small tactical nukes like the old davy crockett (hopefully updated), or the use of nerve agents for the purpose of securing sensitive areas. There are people out there that will want these devices, and I don’t see an argument that stops at, well, wherever it is that you are willing to stop. > > To be honest, I find it far more likely that security contractors will try to justify the use of WMDs far before the govt comes around to confiscate your guns, and yet, I am supposed to treat the idea that the govt is going to come around and confiscate your guns seriously. How is that not hyperbole? Should those who are for the responsible regulation of firearms refuse to engage with anyone who brings up govt confiscation as someone not to be taken seriously? I’m not sure how private militarized security is relevant. I’m going to ignore it otherwise. Given that confiscation (not for all) has happened, I think the idea of it is much more realistic. But really, the number of people advocating for private nukes is virtually zero. The number of people advocating for outright bans on guns and/or confiscation is much larger. > [@](#): > > Let’s back up then. You have indicated, I think, that you agree with the laws against machine guns. If that is the case, what justification do you use to deny a machine gun to someone that wants one and claims that they will use it responsibly? I’m not talking here about heller or sc court decisions based on 2A, nor even about existing legislation, as all of that is easily changed. But, within 2A, and within your personal feelings on the matter, what limits do you put on the sorts of weaponry that one can arm themselves with. There is a large difference between what I think should be legal, what the law says should be legal, and what is actually legal. I personally do not agree with the laws against machine guns and if I wore a black robe for a living and had 4 other co-workers who agreed with me, I’d overturn the NFA. Barring that, I’d like Congress to do so. I do not think that is ever going to happen. But hey, Ruth and Kennedy could retire and then things would get interesting. If machine guns were legal in my state, I would buy one. But if you want to talk about what the law is, then the criteria for what is available to restrict are those weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, and not in common use. It’s circular for sure, but that’s what the law is. AR-15 pattern semi-auto rifles are the most common rifle in the US. There are 10s of millions of them. > [@](#): > > Manson said that you feel that people should be able to arm themselves as well as the police, but I don’t remember your positions well enough to say if that is the case. If this is the case, are you talking normal police, or swat? Is it typical police gear, or anything that they have access to? Referring to using police and soldiers as a metric, but mostly focused on magazine size, I said this: > [@A gun control legislation thread!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/84): > > It’s not a maximum - but it’s a guidepost. It’s a less arbitrary way of defining what is reasonable. Police arguably go through analysis to determine what the most effective carry tools are for them. Piggybacking off of this analysis is a means to establish a baseline. If it is reasonable for police to carry 17 round mags in their service weapons, then it is reasonable for individuals to carry 17 round mags. This isn’t to say larger magazines are unreasonable. > > Another facet of this line of reasoning is that laws that prohibit people from various things related to arms sometimes exempt police, off duty police, or even retired police. This makes no sense. Just like the proposal in the OP - when exempting hunters it’s an effort to divide gun rights advocates. The idea is that gun control folks aren’t after hunters, so they should acquiesce to various restrictions. It has had limited success in the past but I think many folks have wised up to this strategy of division. > > **And by including police within the the same group of people that any limits will be imposed upon, then there is the expectation that police will not support restrictions that make them less effective. It adopts every argument that a police force may employ to support their choice in arms.** The military aspect arises because of the militia component and that is more of a constitutional argument. You didn’t participate in this thread, however it’s more fleshed out in the posts before and after. I would add that the one of the core purposes of the second amendment is self defense. I think there is an argument to be made that standard kits may include things that are offensive in nature, and for those I think they have less basis of support. This also is focused on arms, not ordinance. > [@](#): > > Just out of curiosity, Bone, IYHO, is this the sort of post that I should be taking seriously? You can make your own determination. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > He used that as an excuse to deflect from my questions of what changes, if any, he would make to 2A in order to both protect his right to a gun, and to protect my right to not be shot. (Seems he should at least be up for clearing up the comma confusion) He also used it as a way to deflect from where I see hypocrisy in his position where he claims to support causes that he agrees with, but when those causes conflict, he chooses guns over the other causes, which, to me, means that he supports guns over any other cause. It is not hypocrisy to prioritize which causes to support. I am essentially a single issue voter, though I use it as a disqualifier more than anything. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/146 "2017-10-06T16:28:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Do you take the whole Constitution seriously, or only the parts you like? The whole thing, but I am particularly fond of the Tenth Amendment. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/147 "2017-10-06T17:51:59Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I didn’t challenge. I asked. What would you do. You say that all the gun control advocates are ignorant about guns, and that we don’t know what we are doing when we pass legislation, so I ask, honestly, what should we do? > > And every time I ask that, I get this same non-response. There’s nothing that we can do. I’m not sure that anyone has pointed out that fewer guns does not equate with less killings. If they had, I woulda asked how that works. We have other countries with fewer guns, and less killings. I am not sure I will just take your word for it that fewer guns will result in fewer people being shot with them, but we will progress. Your evidence that fewer guns leads to more killings is that other countries have fewer guns and fewer killings. But there are countries with lots of killings and few guns. Honduras has fewer guns per capita than the UK and has the highest gun murder rate in the world. All the top ten countries in the world in gun homicides have firearms per capita rates less than one fifth of the US. If we reduced the amount of guns per capita 85% it would be the same as Mexico which has a gun homicide rate 75% higher than the US. You can look inside the same country as well, the number of guns in the US has doubled in the same time the murder rate has been cut in half. More guns does not mean more shootings. QED > [@](#): > > IYHO Which would be better to cut the number of killings without having fewer guns or having fewer guns or the same number of killings? Obviously the first, so the emphasis needs to be to cut the number of killings and not the number of guns. > [@](#): > > I agree wholeheartedly on the second part of that sentence. Training and reviews and more training. Maybe we need more cops too, but lets see what we can do with the ones we have first. It has been [shown](http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article177035411.html)that gun control does not prevent violence, we should try things that have been shown. More cops has been [shown](https://www.princeton.edu/~smello/papers/Cops.pdf)to prevent crime. And not just in one study but [multiple](http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/TerrorAlertProofs.pdf)[studies](https://eml.berkeley.edu/~jmccrary/chalfin_mccrary2012.pdf). > [@](#): > > Hey, a form of gun control, and it worked. Huh. It was not a form of gun control in that it neither sought to reduce the number of guns or restrict anybody from acquiring guns. IT was an anti-crime measure. > [@](#): > > Well, when the police do things to make the community mistrust them, then crime goes up. That’s a problem, but it is not a problem that I would blame on democrats, but on the police who abuse their communities. So your story is that people got so mad at the police they starting shooting each other? It seems more intuitive that criminals were emboldened when police are pressured to be more passive. > [@](#): > > And if any of these mayors had the ability to keep the guns from coming in from outside the city or state that they do not control, then maybe we’d see a bit fewer gun deaths. As it is, all you need to do to get a gun into chico is drive a couple miles to indiana. Lucky for the mayor of San Diego that the city is an island fortress where no would be gun smugglers can hope to enter. There are plenty of cities that have much lower than Chicago where guns are just as easy to get into. That is just an excuse for failure. > [@](#): > > As to making it harder for young people to find jobs, which party wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour and destroy the low skilled job market once and for all? > > That’s an interesting claim. I assume you are claiming that it is the democrats that wants to destroy the low skilled job market? I don’t think so. Now, democrats have been for increasing the MW, but to $15 federally, not many are behind that. And instantly, no one is behind that. An increase of $3-4 over 3 years, you could probably find many democrats behind that. I do not believe that a 3-4 hike over 3 years will destroy the job market as you claim. > Why would any of these people go out and get these jobs that don’t manage to pay their rent, much less any other living expenses, when they can sling drugs or perform in other illegal activities for far more compensation? I don’t claim the want to destroy the low skilled job market just that the want to increase the higher minimum wage which would do so regardless of intent. Drug dealing and other activities are not as remunerative as many people think. The average wage is 24K per year and the entry level [positions](http://www.unique-design.net/library/myth/fantasy/rich.html)pay much less than minimum wage. > [@](#): > > For 2 (really a few months between franken being sat and kennedy dying) years, and you say that during these 2 years, 7 years ago, is the reason for all the drug problems today. Nothing about the 80’s and nancy’s thousand points of light? Nothing about “just say no”? And your claim that the Obama admin did nothing against the drug war is also fallacious in that Obama, by executive order he allowed states to implement their own drug policies where it came to marijuana. The current administration with Mr Sessions is looking to reverse that. > > So, your attempts at throwing the drug war on the democrats have failed, along with your attempts at painting democrats as the ones who are preventing inner city poor people from turning to crime. > > ETA: You also claimed that drugs were not legal in democrat (sic.) run states. What’s california? If the democrats really were the party of ending the drug war the had two years to do so and they did not even pretend to attempt to. The drug war has been a bi-partisan program for as long as it has been around. Some states are now experimenting with decriminalizing or legalizing one drug. That would not end the drug war as cocain, meth, heroin, etc would still be illegal. In most of the states legalization has been by referendum, not as a result of democrat politicians. California is state that was run by Democrats for 20 years before a popular referendum legalized one drug. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/148 "2017-10-06T17:57:43Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Broadly - punishment is some kind of sanction or penalty as a consequence of some other action. For example, two people A and B both legally possess a slide fire bump stock. A commits crimes using it, and B does not. It would be appropriate to punish A for their actions. It would not be appropriate to punish B for the actions of A. The question of whether the slide fire stock should be legal is independent of the actions of A. This gets magnified if there is a group of people that are represented by B, and a single person that is A. I get where you are coming from, but when the only way to find out if someone is A or B is to let them have weapons and see if they kill anyone with them, then the amount of damage that can be done with those weapons should be at least somewhat limited. You are concerned about A and B here, I am concerned about C, the innocent bystander. > [@](#): > > It is no punishment to restrict the ability of people to have nukes, because people never had that in the first place. The question of whether to limit nukes can be addressed on its own merits. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure how private militarized security is relevant. I’m going to ignore it otherwise. Because they are the ones I always see pushing the envelope on what types of weaponry is available outside of the country’s officially sanctioned military. > [@](#): > > Given that confiscation (not for all) has happened, I think the idea of it is much more realistic. But really, the number of people advocating for private nukes is virtually zero. The number of people advocating for outright bans on guns and/or confiscation is much larger. I’ve not seen confiscation. I mean, I am sure there are individuals who have had their guns confiscated because that individual did something that got their guns taken, but I’ve not seen any sort of blanket confiscation, going around to homes and demanding your guns as I see the concern on the other side of the “slippery slope” of gun control. The argument that gets made against any form of gun registration is that then the govt knows who has guns, and can come and get them. The number of people advocating for the govt to come around house to house following the gun registration to demand your guns at the point of their gun is virtually zero, yet, that’s a fear that I see on the gun advocate side all the time. > [@](#): > > There is a large difference between what I think should be legal, what the law says should be legal, and what is actually legal. I personally do not agree with the laws against machine guns and if I wore a black robe for a living and had 4 other co-workers who agreed with me, I’d overturn the NFA. Barring that, I’d like Congress to do so. I do not think that is ever going to happen. But hey, Ruth and Kennedy could retire and then things would get interesting. > > If machine guns were legal in my state, I would buy one. But if you want to talk about what the law is, then the criteria for what is available to restrict are those weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, and not in common use. It’s circular for sure, but that’s what the law is. AR-15 pattern semi-auto rifles are the most common rifle in the US. There are 10s of millions of them. So, if not at machine guns, where would you set a limit, if at all? I was thinking that you were saying that you would stop your advocacy for removing restrictions on guns once it got to that point, but if not, where? Would you limit it to man portable arms (starting with field artillery and going to tanks, ships, and planes), non-explosive weapons (grenades, mines, and the like), any limit on rate of fire or penetration power? What weapon of war does a platoon leader have access to that I wouldn’t, if any? > [@](#): > > Referring to using police and soldiers as a metric, but mostly focused on magazine size, I said this: > > You didn’t participate in this thread, however it’s more fleshed out in the posts before and after. I would add that the one of the core purposes of the second amendment is self defense. I think there is an argument to be made that standard kits may include things that are offensive in nature, and for those I think they have less basis of support. This also is focused on arms, not ordinance. So, rather than open up the population’s access to weapons to include all that a cop has access to, you would limit what a cop has access to to what the population does. Very nice symmetry, but I’m not sure on some details. Would SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) have access to more advanced weapons and materiel than the population? With the current militarization of the local PD’s, that could turn out to be an ugly race if not. > [@](#): > > It is not hypocrisy to prioritize which causes to support. I am essentially a single issue voter, though I use it as a disqualifier more than anything. But, that’s just it, you prioritize your access to guns higher than you prioritize the things that would limit the damage that having these weapons freely available to the public does. If democrats are in power, they are very unlikely to make any meaningful impact on your gun ownership. If they try really hard, and burn all their political capital, there may end up being a comparative handful of guns that you cannot add to your collection. Your access to guns, in general, as a means of self-defense, which you consider to be the core principle of the second amendment, would be entirely untouched, even if there were some guns that you could not buy. But democrats are the ones who are more likely to end the drug war, and help to find something useful and productive for the 17-35 year olds who are getting themselves in trouble with guns, and making other gun owners look bad in the process. Republicans may preserve your right to get that new model gun that you have your eye on that makes the liberals squirm in fear for whatever devastating feature it has that they’d like to ban, but they will do nothing to address what you point out as the causes of gun violence. Personally, I’m ambivalent on guns. I doubt I will ever own one, but many of my friends do, and they seem to get enjoyment out of them, it’s too expensive a hobby for me to partake often, but I hit the range with them a couple/few times a year. At the same time, I know victims of gun violence. I’ve had 2 acquaintances kill themselves with a gun. I have had a gun put to my head by a crazy lady that thought I was selling her (teenage) son drugs (I wasn’t). If all guns disappeared tomorrow, I don’t think that I would be any less safe. If everything up to machine guns, and even m203’s and explosive grenades were legalized, it’s probably not going to affect my safety either. Looking at it in the aggregate, though, policies that result in less death and injury are superior, IMHO, to policies that result in more death and injury. Some level of access to gun does, I believe, decrease the level of death and injury, due to that gun being used for self defense against those who would do harm. I also see the other side, though, where too many guns about increase the level of death and injury, as criminals get ahold of them, as toddlers get ahold of them, as police are afraid of them and shoot first, as suicidal people get ahold of them, as idiots get ahold of them, we start climbing our way up the other side of the valley. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/149 "2017-10-06T18:17:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > There is a large difference between what I think should be legal, what the law says should be legal, and what is actually legal. I personally do not agree with the laws against machine guns and if I wore a black robe for a living and had 4 other co-workers who agreed with me, I’d overturn the NFA. Barring that, I’d like Congress to do so. I do not think that is ever going to happen. But hey, Ruth and Kennedy could retire and then things would get interesting Well, I wasn’t trying to mischaracterize your argument, I thought I knew what it was. I actually thought it was not too much of an unreasonable one, just one with which I disagreed. But now you are stating that you think everyone should be able to purchase a fully automatic machine gun. Since you’ve stated that, I now ask you as well - Do you believe everyone should be able to buy and bear a fully functional M134 Minigun. If not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/150 "2017-10-06T19:51:33Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’ve not seen confiscation. I mean, I am sure there are individuals who have had their guns confiscated because that individual did something that got their guns taken, but I’ve not seen any sort of blanket confiscation, going around to homes and demanding your guns as I see the concern on the other side of the “slippery slope” of gun control. The argument that gets made against any form of gun registration is that then the govt knows who has guns, and can come and get them. > > The number of people advocating for the govt to come around house to house following the gun registration to demand your guns at the point of their gun is virtually zero, yet, that’s a fear that I see on the gun advocate side all the time. Confiscation doesn’t necessarily mean door to door, though that did happen after hurricane Katrina. CA recently passed a law banning magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. If I were to own, 50 thirty round magazines, after the effective date those would be illegal, effectively confiscated. If the ATF rules that slide stocks are machine guns under the NFA, then there’s going to be 10s of thousands, or more of people in possession of unregistered illegal machine guns. They’d have to get rid of them since they can no longer be registered. So no, I do not fear door to door seizure, though that’s happened as well in CA for people mistakenly on the APPS program (They got them back after a time). But laws have been passed that confiscate people’s weapons. Nothing has been suggested to allow for private nukes. > [@](#): > > So, if not at machine guns, where would you set a limit, if at all? I provided a guidepost in my previous post. If police believe a weapon is useful for their defense, then it is useful for my defense. I adopt all reasoning they would give for wanting various arms. If they possess offensive weapons due to the nature of their occupation, then those are not the types that I am including. > [@](#): > > But, that’s just it, you prioritize your access to guns higher than you prioritize the things that would limit the damage that having these weapons freely available to the public does. If democrats are in power, they are very unlikely to make any meaningful impact on your gun ownership. If they try really hard, and burn all their political capital, there may end up being a comparative handful of guns that you cannot add to your collection. Your access to guns, in general, as a means of self-defense, which you consider to be the core principle of the second amendment, would be entirely untouched, even if there were some guns that you could not buy. Even if all of this is true, it does not indicate hypocrisy which was your assertion. But this is not true - currently I am unable to obtain a carry permit in my state. The Democratic Party in CA has a supermajority in both houses. They are the ones who passed the confiscatory scheme. They are the ones that disallow carry. Because of the demographics of the state, it’s unlikely CA will flip anytime soon. The best path forward is either through the courts (Peruta petitioned for cert), or through a national effort. Ending the war on drugs is not going to happen anytime soon. Having a negative income tax replace the welfare state is not going to happen anytime soon. But there is a national reciprocity bill in congress right now. There is a cert petition right now. So yes, I support those who support gun rights. > [@Slash1972](#): > > But now you are stating that you think everyone should be able to purchase a fully automatic machine gun. Since you’ve stated that, I now ask you as well - Do you believe everyone should be able to buy and bear a fully functional M134 Minigun. If not, why not? I don’t think the NFA ought to be constitutional. That’s the one that also classifies suppressors the same way as full auto machine guns. If SHARE were to pass, that would address that bit of silliness. But based on current jurisprudence, I don’t think a ban on machine guns is supportable, however I’m not opposed to restrictions on them. If I wanted to purchase one, I cannot because they are illegal in CA. If I were in AZ, then I could pass the required checks and pay and buy one. That’s true for anyone with money, and who doesn’t live in a jurisdiction that bans them. So, most everyone could already buy a fully automatic machine gun. I think any ban need to be justified, not the other way around. There’s probably pretty good reason to heavily restrict machine guns, but I think the NFA was an unconstitutional way to do that. I know this is a minority position. I don’t know much about the minigun but it doesn’t seem like a bearable arm in the context of the 2nd amendment. Since it’s not a bearable arm, it wouldn’t fall under the protection of the 2nd. It is both dangerous and unusual in a way greater than other firearms are dangerous and unusual, and it is not in common use. I’d say it has greater offensive use than defensive as well, so I’d say there is fertile ground for it’s prohibition. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/151 "2017-10-06T19:54:22Z")
> [@nate](#): > > I know this topic has probably been done to death, but I have a question/survey for those in favor for new gun control laws. Disclaimer, I’m a liberal, from a conservative family and probably the reddest state in the country, and I live in a mid-sized metro area. Anyway, I can’t figure out this missing step: > > 1. Place new restrictions on the sale of firearms > 2. ??? > 3. Less gun violence > > Can someone please fill in no. 2? I mean, if guns were a new thing, it would make complete sense to outlaw or restrict the sale of them, but there are 300 millions guns in the US and it’s not like they are consumable items. They exist and are in the hands of the citizens. It’s to the point now that it would be a violation of a fundamental right of self-preservation to restrict the transfer of firearms. Face it, it’s the country we live in, a shit ton of guns exist, and it’s going to take another route to curb gun violence, if it is possible at all. Canada has suffered a few mass shootings even with its gun laws, but we’ve had much fewer of them, and the number of victims is miniscule compared to the U.S. Ditto for Australia and Britain, if you haven’t seen the thousands of references to it already on these boards. No law will completely stop any kind of crime, only reduce it, and that’s the best we can expect. Laws just make it harder for criminals. An absence of laws enables them. If nothing is done because “oh well, that’s the country we live in”, or from fear of blowback, you’re letting the [del]terrorists[/del] criminals win. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2017, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/152 "2017-10-09T10:23:13Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Democrats had complete control of the federal government from 2008-2010 and did nothing about … 😕 Cite for the clause I’ve underlined? Let us note in passing that in today’s super-partisan environment, we need five of the 9 Scotus Justices to have been appointed by Demo Presidents to have “complete control.” The last time that that was the case was in 1969 — long before 2008. Since 1970 there have always been at least five Justices appointed by the GOP. (\* Yes, it shouldn’t matter: Justices take solemn oaths etc. But we’re not speaking of a hypothetical U.S. with righteous judges and leaders; we’re speaking of the U.S. as it now really exists.) But let’s set aside SCOTUS, and confirm that the quoted excerpt is nonsense anyway. With McConnell choosing to filibuster any motion that lacked support from a majority of Republicans, as part of his “Sabotage America to make Obama fail” agenda, control required 1 President and 60 Senators. The only President in 2008 was GOP, but the claims about 2009 and 2010 are also incorrect. Don’t forget that the GOP filed lawsuits to delay the seating of two Democratic Senators elected to the 111th Congress. Al Franken was sworn into the senate on July 7, 2009, 246 days after election. Only then did the Democratic caucus have the required supermajority of 60 votes. On January 19, 2010, Scott Brown was elected to Kennedy’s seat; this brought the GOP numbers in the Senate up to 41. IOW, the three year period of complete control of the federal government by the Democrats you refer to was NOT three years — **it was just 28 weeks**. And for parts of the 28 weeks Teddy Kennedy had the necessary 60th vote but, with the GOP denying even the courtesy of matching votes, _Teddy could not even appear to cast his vote except with great hardship and against medical advice._ The GOP certainly did use its influence during the period that **puddleglum** thinks the Democrats had total control. Because of her pro-choice stance, the very qualified Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius had confirmation delayed until late April, when finally — due to a swine flu crisis — the GOP was afraid of bad press if they continued to obstruct. Still, Ms. Sebelius received only 9 GOP votes. I suppose that you, **puddleglum** , are now thinking “Three years? Half a year? What’s the big difference??” I’m inclined to agree that mine might be classed as nitpicking, _ **but it is so tiresome to fight the very same ignorances over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.** _ If “half a year” is adequate to make your point, why the need to exaggerate this to “3 years”? #FakeFacts get very tiresome to read; don’t they get tiresome to post? I’ll lay odds that, despite these stern words, after a few months this very same ignorance will be parroted back again. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/153 "2017-10-09T18:16:07Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Canada has suffered a few mass shootings even with its gun laws, but we’ve had much fewer of them, and the number of victims is miniscule compared to the U.S. Ditto for Australia and Britain, if you haven’t seen the thousands of references to it already on these boards. No law will completely stop any kind of crime, only reduce it, and that’s the best we can expect. Laws just make it harder for criminals. An absence of laws enables them. > > If nothing is done because “oh well, that’s the country we live in”, or from fear of blowback, you’re letting the [del]terrorists[/del] criminals win. What law will reduce these crimes? If there is such a law then it should be passed, but the proposed laws are either totally ineffective (gun show loophole) or totally unrealistic (gun ban). All of the proposed solutions will have large costs, so it is better to do nothing than to do something that is ineffective. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/154 "2017-10-10T16:28:27Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I’ll lay odds that, despite these stern words, after a few months this very same ignorance will be parroted back again. :mad: I won’t take that action. My only advice, bookmark this post, that way, you can just reference it that next time that a conservative makes that claim. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/155 "2017-10-11T08:09:09Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What law will reduce these crimes? If there is such a law then it should be passed… That’s refreshing to see, honestly. But instead of asking an amateur, you should ask some people who are better qualified to answer, like **[smartgunlaws.org](http://smartgunlaws.org/)**, for instance. They know a lot more about it than I do, and they might even clear up some misconceptions you might have. Best of luck. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/156 "2017-10-11T16:09:25Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > That’s refreshing to see, honestly. But instead of asking an amateur, you should ask some people who are better qualified to answer, like **[smartgunlaws.org](http://smartgunlaws.org/)**, for instance. They know a lot more about it than I do, and they might even clear up some misconceptions you might have. > > Best of luck. They seem like an odd choice in that they rate Vermont as scoring an F on gun laws and California an A despite California having a murder rate that is three times as high as Vermont. From their website it seem obvious that they are mistaking the Canadian border effect for effective gun laws. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/157 "2017-10-11T23:56:21Z")
Was there anything positive you saw on the site? BTW, thanks for checking it out. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2017, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/158 "2017-10-12T00:21:30Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Was there anything positive you saw on the site? > > BTW, thanks for checking it out. It’s a well known cite but is essentially a gun control advocacy group. It’s similar to linking to the NRA. I do find them to be useful when looking up specific laws for various states and localities as they have links to the actual laws. Their policy recommendations are what you’d expect. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/159 "2017-10-12T15:23:37Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Was there anything positive you saw on the site? > > BTW, thanks for checking it out. I think straw buyer laws are a good idea and need to be better enforced. Extending domestic partner protections to dating relationships might be a good idea, though I would need to know more about it to be sure. I hated the constant refrain of “common sense” as though this was not a complicated issue. It is an insult to all of our intelligences. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2017, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/160 "2017-10-13T04:49:57Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > I think straw buyer laws are a good idea and need to be better enforced. Extending domestic partner protections to dating relationships might be a good idea, though I would need to know more about it to be sure. Every bit helps, I guess. I gather you think they wouldn’t cost too much, and you might be right, but to be honest, the effect they’d have on overall gun violence would be miniscule, wouldn’t it? > [@puddleglum](#): > > I hated the constant refrain of “common sense” as though this was not a complicated issue. It is an insult to all of our intelligences. Is your intelligence similarly insulted when you go to a biased gun rights website? I know mine is.😉 I actually agree with you about the editorializing, but it happens on both sides. Glass houses and all that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847.md?page=9)